Sentences with phrase «unconscionable bargain»

Of course, the client may be able to show undue influence, a breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or an unconscionable bargain, but this requires as a minimum an inequality of bargaining power, a manifestly disadvantageous agreement and an undue degree of pressure brought to bear by the stronger party; such matters are notoriously difficult to prove, particularly in a commercial context.

Recent litigation includes acting for a receiver in a claim to recover possession from trespassers and mortgagors; acting for a claimant in a trial to establish a prescriptive right to park; acting for a former cohabitee in a claim for a beneficial interest of property under TOLATA; acting in a claim for an injunction and damages in respect of trespass and nuisance; acting for a mortgagee in a contested mortgage possession claim defended on the grounds of undue influence, non est factum and unconscionable bargain; acting for a defendant in a claim for damages for unlawful eviction; and acting for a landlord in a claim for renewal of a business tenancy.

Not exact matches

The Court also declared that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in circumstances in which it had greater bargaining power than certain suppliers, including by:

In relation to the second proceedings, the Court made declarations that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in circumstances where it had greater bargaining power in relation to certain suppliers, including, by:

Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)

Strengthen CCA to «outlaw predatory conduct that has negative effects on competition, value chain suppliers and ultimately consumers» (p 1); MMP (amend s 46 to outlaw predatory conduct), unconscionable conduct (needs to be strengthened), unfair terms (extend to business and further guidance), collective bargaining (claims ineffective; wants collective boycott option), Code of Conduct (wants mandatory code).

Supports NFF submission and identifies 10 priority areas: Unconscionable conduct, Misuse of market power (effects test), Unfair contract terms (extension to small business), Collective bargaining (inc raising threshold for primary production bargaining), Codes of conduct, Statutory duty of good faith, Powers of the ACCC (price monitoring, divestiture powers), Access, Protection from agri - terrorism, Establishing a Perishable Goods Commissioner

Changes to competition laws (milk wars discussion and recommendations relating to MMP (introduce effects test), predatory pricing (recommend Minister direct ACCC to investigate Coles for breach of s 46 relating to predatory pricing), unconscionable conduct (suggest it be defined), statutory duty of good faith, unfair contract terms (seeks «recognition of the competitive disadvantage faced by farmers» and extension of unfair contract terms protection to small business), collective bargaining (seeks relaxation of public interest test for boycott approvals in agriculture markets, increase «ability for peak bodies to commence and progress collective bargaining and boycott applications» on behalf of members - and further dairy specific recommendations, ACCC divestiture power (wants ACCC to have similar divestiture powers to Comp Commission in UK - «simpler process of divestiture», ACCC monitoring powers (wants Minister to direct ACCC to use price monitoring powers to «monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of drinking milk») and mandatory code of conduct (wants mandatory code and «Ombudsman with teeth to ensure compliance»)-RRB-.

«The ACCC alleges that Coles used undue pressure and unfair tactics in negotiating with suppliers, provided misleading information and took advantage of its superior bargaining position, so that its overall conduct was in all the circumstances unconscionable.

«Apart from considerations of illegality, agreements to pay Form Fillers in circumstances of unequal bargaining power and where an improvident deal was made, such as the two examples in the record before this court, are unconscionable and therefore voidable at the instance of the instance of the claimants who entered them.»

If the exclusion clause applies, the second issue is whether the exclusion clause was unconscionable at the time the contract was made, «as might arise from situations of unequal bargaining power between the parties» (Hunter, at p. 462).

On the issue of whether Uber could contract out of the Employment Standards Act requirements, making the agreement unconscionable, the court considered the three elements of unconscionability: there must be an inequality of bargaining power, a substantially unfair bargain, and the defendant must knowingly be taking advantage of a vulnerable plaintiff.

Mr. Lederman replied that when a court looks to the reasonable intention of the parties, any imbalance in bargaining power between parties does not affect the contract's interpretation, unless the contract was unconscionable at the time of formation [para 85 of Respondents» Factum].

The Court also commented on the unequal nature of the bargaining relationship between the IAP claimants and the form - filling companies, noting that the behaviour of the form - fillers in obtaining consent to the contingency agreements was «unconscionable.»

Relying on Douez v. Facebook, Inc., he took the position that the agreement was unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion where he had no bargaining power.